On Romancing the Blowers Daughter

[vorshlumpf]

However, i see this is as plausible ways of encouraging war in normal diplomatic relations. It seems very plausible to me to play off a civs hatred of another, to trigger war with a 3rd civ that you orgiionally want them to fight.
-Qes

So, you're saying that you would do the same, if in the AI's position? You would take a bribe to fight two enemies, when you were afraid of fighting one of those enemies alone?

- secret pacts ("We have sworn to attack that state in the middle in y.486" making it possible to prepare for mutual fight, which is nearly impossible with the "declare war")

Yes, I've thought about this, too, ever since starting vanilla civ. Sometimes I'd be more than happy to join someone in a war, but declaring war at that moment (sometimes with workers along my borders) would be counter to my desire to continue existing.

It would be neat to get a demand from a civ such as, "Whelp, I'm giving you 5 years to amass an army and join me in my crusade. If you don't, you can consider your lands as next on my list of conquests."

- Niilo

 

[Sureshot]

Ya, i always end up with my relations getting worse and worse unless i focus on one other civ.
Invariably, if you don't accept one persons demands, they get mad at you, but if you do accept their demands, you end up angrying someone else, which chains to make every one of their friends mad at you as well.

The 'best' solution to keeping everyone 'happiest' is 1) to reject all others-related demands (like declaring war, breaking off trade, etc.), since then each demand only upsets 1 person (each and every others-related demand you accept upsets 1 person and all their friends) and 2) to accept every self-related demand (like giving tribute, techs, resources).

It seems like a losing battle, since even what seems like optimal choices sends you on a constantly degrading diplomatic feelings. The only hope is to focus on one civ if you want good relations with anyone.


What would help is if there were more serious cliques. I'm not sure how this is with the current version, but previously i'd seen it happen where i'd attack infernals and the mercurians would get the "you attacked our friend!" negative diplomacy modifier.
If a good/neutral aligned civ attacks an evil one they should get a "you helped fight the cause of evil!" bonus modifier for any good civs. Similar for evil/neutrals attacking good, regardless of any perceived friendship.

 

[QES]

So, you're saying that you would do the same, if in the AI's position? You would take a bribe to fight two enemies, when you were afraid of fighting one of those enemies alone?

Yes, maybe, because the point here is that Im hating one person and indifferent to the other. Many wars are not about gain, they're about revenge, impetuence, self-righteousness, you name it. Granted, this is a game, and therefore we always think of all game mechanics as ends to a "victory" but in normal civilzation relations, there is no "victory" persay. Even in war, there are only survivers. I'll go ahead and say it, one day, America will fall, it wont be here anymore. Something bigger or stronger, (or perhaps many little things) will destroy her, but all empires fall, all civilizations fail. So what is the use in getting proud over a victory in a war? Or a conquest of a peoples? All glory is fleeting, therefore the 'real' reasons for war are often MUCH more personal. Someone has a vested self-interest in war, this is reflected quite well with the "not him, but HIM" mentality of the AI.
Everywar that has ever been has been because of someones personal interest, the reason it successfully goes into the scale of "war" instead of "vendetta" usually deals with the amount of power the person wields, and whether or not they can convince their people/nation to go along with them.

My little philosophy on war,
-Qes

 

[QES]

On the origional topic of this thread I've another idea:

Any use of beneficial magic might also be considered "gifting". In this if you use your vitalize spells, or any spells that increase the value of the territory in foreign soil, perhaps this would be viewed upon favorably. Also, any use of "happiness" modifiers, or positive benefits in cities (there are a few spells that fit this description) would also be considered gifts in this romantic notion of diplomacy.

Also.....once some sort of "arangment" has been made, where both participants in this exclusive diplomacy have done their part, perhaps some sort of "permanent alliance" could be formed, one that would be impossible to break. And one in which victory would be shared. In this, two empires could effectively become one. Perhaps wonder and national wonder bonuses could be shared, or utilized as well. Creating a "marraige" or "union" in civilizations. Sorta like how we dont like to admit it, but Britain keeps winding up in America's bed. Over and over, its a marraige, despite how else we might treat it. .
-Qes

 

[Sureshot]

and the UN is wondering "why the hell doesn't he ever listen to me?!"

"to give all the peoples of the world democracy, we must act unilaterally and ignore the world democracy" lmao

 

[Chandrasekhar]

... and that's the big difference between mob rule and democracy. In democracy, there must always be an authoriative figure or institution that retains the right to act unilaterally, even though they may owe their existence to that of the democracy. If it's simply one-for-one votes that decide everything, then it's simply glorified anarchy, a mob rule. Avoiding this is the greatest challenge of democratic institutions.

But I'm getting way off topic here. Maybe, if all of the stuff we've been talking about here is implemented (that's a big if), two Civs that have any positive diplomatic factors like these might be much more likely to do defensive pacts and permanent alliances. Though I still think that such things should have "back doors out" to them.

 

[QES]

... and that's the big difference between mob rule and democracy. In democracy, there must always be an authoriative figure or institution that retains the right to act unilaterally, even though they may owe their existence to that of the democracy. If it's simply one-for-one votes that decide everything, then it's simply glorified anarchy, a mob rule. Avoiding this is the greatest challenge of democratic institutions.

But I'm getting way off topic here. Maybe, if all of the stuff we've been talking about here is implemented (that's a big if), two Civs that have any positive diplomatic factors like these might be much more likely to do defensive pacts and permanent alliances. Though I still think that such things should have "back doors out" to them.

What is CIV for if not for geopolitical discussion?
Demogogery(sp?) is a threat to democracy (pure or republican). The single most important facet of a democratic institution is not for a authoritative "center" to exist as a weight on that democracy, but instead a well informed and prosperous middle class. The "informed masses" avoid demogogery(sp?) whilst keeping the govnerment in line with the people. Now, the key issue with this, is "what is informed masses". Considering the abject fear that our forefathers had OF the masses, we cannot claim that it is FOR the masses that our republic was/has formed. Mob-rule is avoided through the rule of law. And the rule of law is kept sound by an informed middle class. Upon the shrinking of that class, then demagogery(sp?) or Mob-rule, and/or anarchy will ensue after class conflicts flare. The avoidance of this chaos is simple.....educate the poor, tax the rich, maintain the rule of law (primarily for property) so prosperity and industry flourish.
-Qes

 

[Chandrasekhar]

What is CIV for if not for geopolitical discussion?
Demogogery(sp?) is a threat to democracy (pure or republican). The single most important facet of a democratic institution is not for a authoritative "center" to exist as a weight on that democracy, but instead a well informed and prosperous middle class. The "informed masses" avoid demogogery(sp?) whilst keeping the govnerment in line with the people. Now, the key issue with this, is "what is informed masses". Considering the abject fear that our forefathers had OF the masses, we cannot claim that it is FOR the masses that our republic was/has formed. Mob-rule is avoided through the rule of law. And the rule of law is kept sound by an informed middle class. Upon the shrinking of that class, then demagogery(sp?) or Mob-rule, and/or anarchy will ensue after class conflicts flare. The avoidance of this chaos is simple.....educate the poor, tax the rich, maintain the rule of law (primarily for property) so prosperity and industry flourish.
-Qes

All you say is true, but I was intending to refer to another feature of democracy.

In a republican democracy (which is generally held to be better and more fair than a true democracy), there is always a leadership figure, who retains a capacity for unilateral control and action despite the will of the populace. These leaders are elected by the populace for the express purpose of making these unilateral decisions, as the founders of such republican democracies are well aware that many moderately-informed opinions are not necessarily more valid than one well-informed opinion.

There was a reason that I referred to this point a couple of posts back. If the free world and its nations are to be analagous to the nations and their people, and a national democracy is held to be analagous to the world democracy, then some might make the statement that the United States might be considered the leadership figure of the free world, if only by inference. Despite quite a bit of negative sentiment towards it, the free world tends to take direction from the US, for one reason or another. If these are true, one might also say that the United States was justified in taking whatever unilateral action it has chosen. One might even make the point that the UN would be compelled by such an action to either follow the US's lead despite whatever reservations they have or to choose (or infer) another leader of the free world to replace the US.

Basically, I'm just touchy with national pride.

P.S. QES, with the negative sentiment you've shown for demagogery (demagoguery?), are you at all alarmed by the number of radio talk show hosts we have today?

P.P.S. Kael, QES started it. Just so you know.

 

[QES]

All you say is true, but I was intending to refer to another feature of democracy.

In a republican democracy (which is generally held to be better and more fair than a true democracy), there is always a leadership figure, who retains a capacity for unilateral control and action despite the will of the populace. These leaders are elected by the populace for the express purpose of making these unilateral decisions, as the founders of such republican democracies are well aware that many moderately-informed opinions are not necessarily more valid than one well-informed opinion.

Unliateral decision making was precisely the opposite of the intensions of the republican state. Created to balance desision making between the branches of government, unilateralism was avoided, and the "central figure" was carved up into multiple functions of that state. Hence the "balance of power". When this balance is disrupted, (or disruptive) change of the system becomes necessary.

There was a reason that I referred to this point a couple of posts back. If the free world and its nations are to be analagous to the nations and their people, and a national democracy is held to be analagous to the world democracy, then some might make the statement that the United States might be considered the leadership figure of the free world, if only by inference. Despite quite a bit of negative sentiment towards it, the free world tends to take direction from the US, for one reason or another. If these are true, one might also say that the United States was justified in taking whatever unilateral action it has chosen.

Whoat there big fella. If the US is indeed the "leadership" model for a world-republic, then it would also follow that despite ourselves being in that leadership role, if we were to take unpopular action, we should be removed from that position and another (through democratic process) would take our place. If the UN represents that process, while perhaps not BEING that process, it would behoove us to conclude that the UN's decisions in "whom to follow" would represent the greatest number of nations and peoples, and therefore curb any form of unilateralism. If the world disagrees with its leader, much like in a nation-state democracy, they are free to remove that leader from power...unfortunately, leaders with the ability to...rebuff democratic processes, eliminate this analogy as a conclusion.

One might even make the point that the UN would be compelled by such an action to either follow the US's lead despite whatever reservations they have or to choose (or infer) another leader of the free world to replace the US.

Would the US allow the UN to choose a new world leader, considering its present position (i.e. post-wwii)? I have reservations as to that idea.

Basically, I'm just touchy with national pride.

P.S. QES, with the negative sentiment you've shown for demagogery (demagoguery?), are you at all alarmed by the number of radio talk show hosts we have today?

P.P.S. Kael, QES started it. Just so you know.

I did NOT start it....i simply responded . And yes radio talk-show hosts are often just penut-gallery demogogues. Besides, often any extream media is a strategy of a well thought out subversive campaign. Which almost all of them have to be now in days to win.

Me and national pride have little to say to each other, nationalism has caused/is causing too many problems in this world the globe-over. I'll not sound the nationalist.
-Qes

 

[Chandrasekhar]

If you want to get technical, the original republican state did indeed have quite a bit of unilateralism. I am referring, of course, to the United States government in that critical period just after the revolutionary war. The branches of government were more or less nonexistent, and the only reason that this was reformed was because the legislatures of the state governments were full of greedy, selfish people. It might be argued that the "balance of power" is only necessary on small scale parts of government, where corruption can go unnoticed because of a lack of magnification by the national media. But this is not the meat of my argument.

If the US is indeed the "leadership" model for a world-republic, then it would also follow that despite ourselves being in that leadership role, if we were to take unpopular action, we should be removed from that position and another (through democratic process) would take our place. If the UN represents that process, while perhaps not BEING that process, it would behoove us to conclude that the UN's decisions in "whom to follow" would represent the greatest number of nations and peoples, and therefore curb any form of unilateralism. If the world disagrees with its leader, much like in a nation-state democracy, they are free to remove that leader from power...unfortunately, leaders with the ability to...rebuff democratic processes, eliminate this analogy as a conclusion.

There are quite a few examples of leaders making unpopular decisions throughout history. Often, this is because the leader sides with the populace in most issues, or because the leader is recognized as being wise, even when the populace may disagree with him. In the second circumstance, especially, unilateralism is quite alive, even if it is in the minority of scenarios.

I hope you'll forgive me for being combative. I'm just weary of the current American fad of showing absolutely no confidence in America itself. As if these people would rather live elsewhere, as if they could even voice such opinions freely without the precedent that America set. It makes me a bit sensitive to such remarks.

P.S. Actually, QES, my post might have had some geopolitics in it, but it also had stuff relating to the topic. So, you need to include something relating to Civ IV explicitly in your post to have it considered on-topic. Like, "You shouldn't have your workers replace towns with farms in most cases."

 

[QES]

If you want to get technical, the original republican state did indeed have quite a bit of unilateralism. I am referring, of course, to the United States government in that critical period just after the revolutionary war. The branches of government were more or less nonexistent, and the only reason that this was reformed was because the legislatures of the state governments were full of greedy, selfish people. It might be argued that the "balance of power" is only necessary on small scale parts of government, where corruption can go unnoticed because of a lack of magnification by the national media. But this is not the meat of my argument.



There are quite a few examples of leaders making unpopular decisions throughout history. Often, this is because the leader sides with the populace in most issues, or because the leader is recognized as being wise, even when the populace may disagree with him. In the second circumstance, especially, unilateralism is quite alive, even if it is in the minority of scenarios.

I hope you'll forgive me for being combative. I'm just weary of the current American fad of showing absolutely no confidence in America itself. As if these people would rather live elsewhere, as if they could even voice such opinions freely without the precedent that America set. It makes me a bit sensitive to such remarks.

P.S. Actually, QES, my post might have had some geopolitics in it, but it also had stuff relating to the topic. So, you need to include something relating to Civ IV explicitly in your post to have it considered on-topic. Like, "You shouldn't have your workers replace towns with farms in most cases."

Fair enough. Unilateralism has been used in history. True. It has been used to wise ends. True. We should trust that we understand it will be wise to allow unilateralism in the present. False.

As it stands, the Republic is formed precisely because we do not trust a single leader to carry out what he/she thinks is the will of the people. We entrust representatives to carry out the will of the people, and for the "central leader" to function as lead diplomat and "guide". Unilateralism, while at times necessary, its the first tool of the despot. And to sacrifice effeciency to avoid that particular civic option (notice the on-topic referance here), is perfectly acceptable to me. Unilateralism is the last option, much like war-making. If some consenseus can be formed, IF EVER it can be formed, it must be tried. Unilateralism destroys what it means to be self-enfranchised.

And as to confidence in America? I have no confidence in organisations or non-human entities, i have confidence in individuals. Being american, being indain, isreali, ugandan. It all means "your from somewhere", "you have background" "you have socio-economic influences on your person" Etc. But in the end, a country is just another country, a person is something wholey else, and wonderous.
-Qes

p.s. On topic. Monarchy being the halmark of unilateralism, it would strike me that the monarchy civ should have something reflecting the cohesion of leadership accomplishing its goals, perhaps at a cost of prosperity or the like. If city-states turns out to be interesting, aristocrasy representing the rule of the rich (farms...great idea if only workers build farms). God-king seems great, but i feel that each additional non-state religion should anger folks (or rather those folks are angry at a king that is outside their religion and claiming to be god). Etc.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Merely skimming, since I'd rather not drag my real world politics around into my hobbies too much, but:

...(through democratic process) would take our place. If the UN represents that process...

The UN most decidedly does not represent a democratic process when countries are allowed to be members without having a whit of democracy internally. It is a dictators club with some democratically elected nations trying to stem the tide of corruption (and many more willing to swim in that tide). Not withstanding world health organizatoins and the like, after failure in Darfur, child sex scandals, oil-for-food-for-bribes-for-dictators, endless condemnations for Israeli "agression" without any similar finger pointing at China's treatment of Tibet, putting the worst violators of individuals' rights on the "Human rights Committee" (and then "reforming" it an doing it again), beurocracy that makes the IRS look like a church picnic, peace-keepers that run at the first sign of danger, etc., the UN has zero credibility. Calling it the "World's Democracy" is like calling Stalin a benevolent despot.

And yes radio talk-show hosts are often just penut-gallery demogogues.

Perhaps, but there are some good ones.

Also.....once some sort of "arangment" has been made, where both participants in this exclusive diplomacy have done their part, perhaps some sort of "permanent alliance" could be formed, one that would be impossible to break

Are permanet alliances in now? I couldn't figure out how to form one in my last game, but I thought they were possible. Do they need to be enebled at the start up screen?

 

[QES]

Merely skimming, since I'd rather not drag my real world politics around into my hobbies too much, but:

The UN most decidedly does not represent a democratic process when countries are allowed to be members without having a whit of democracy internally. It is a dictators club with some democratically elected nations trying to stem the tide of corruption (and many more willing to swim in that tide). Not withstanding world health organizatoins and the like, after failure in Darfur, child sex scandals, oil-for-food-for-bribes-for-dictators, endless condemnations for Israeli "agression" without any similar finger pointing at China's treatment of Tibet, putting the worst violators of individuals' rights on the "Human rights Committee" (and then "reforming" it an doing it again), beurocracy that makes the IRS look like a church picnic, peace-keepers that run at the first sign of danger, etc., the UN has zero credibility. Calling it the "World's Democracy" is like calling Stalin a benevolent despot.

Perhaps, but there are some good ones.

Are permanet alliances in now? I couldn't figure out how to form one in my last game, but I thought they were possible. Do they need to be enebled at the start up screen?

I'll avoid going back off-topic and talk CIV. Yeah the alliance things can happen now, but their cancelable (for a penalty in diplomacy) and if you declare while the defnesive pact is on (the only alliance i know of) then your ally hates you. In this, the alliances were talking about would be quasi-permanent, if not completely permanent until victory conditions are met. I myself waffle on this issue.

As for the UN, while I want it to mean something more than it does, I do not see it as a world government, which is why the unilateral behaviors of the US are not about "representation or role" in the world, but instead simply about power and flexing that power. If we are a Leader of the world, then it is not out of any sort of "benevolent" or "democratic" reasoning that this is true.

-Qes

p.s. Only civ players could be so well informed as to have a discussion like this at random. Go to a musician fan-site, or random blog and your not going to get this sort of intelligent discussion.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Oh, I didn't mean defensive alliance, I know about those. I thought you could somehow adopt "permanent alliances' midgame, as per the the one availible at set-up screen, until your side wins.

If we are a Leader of the world, then it is not out of any sort of "benevolent" or "democratic" reasoning that this is true.

This is true. While USA is more demographically representative than any other place on earth, I agree that that hardly translates into a global mandate. If we are a Leader of the world, then it is not out of any sort of "benevolent" or "democratic" reasoning that this is true. In fact, I'd hesitate to call us a leader in the sense of having the authority to lead, but rather the abililty. (Due to the power gained from the institutions of western civilization, democracy, capitalism, and science).
However, whether or not American power in the world is a good or bad thing does not derive (directly) from whether or not other people in the world would chose it to be powerful, but whether it is used for good* or evil (or isolation, which is increasingly impossible).

*If one disagrees about the objective existence of these qualities, we had probably better stick to civ discussions.

 

[QES]

Oh, I didn't mean defensive alliance, I know about those. I thought you could somehow adopt "permanent alliances' midgame, as per the the one availible at set-up screen, until your side wins.

This is true. While USA is more demographically representative than any other place on earth, I agree that that hardly translates into a global mandate. If we are a Leader of the world, then it is not out of any sort of "benevolent" or "democratic" reasoning that this is true. In fact, I'd hesitate to call us a leader in the sense of having the authority to lead, but rather the abililty. (Due to the power gained from the institutions of western civilization, democracy, capitalism, and science).
However, whether or not American power in the world is a good or bad thing does not derive (directly) from whether or not other people in the world would chose it to be powerful, but whether it is used for good* or evil (or isolation, which is increasingly impossible).

*If one disagrees about the objective existence of these qualities, we had probably better stick to civ discussions.

Actually that was very well put and concisely explained. I agree.

Back to Civ. I have never seen the option for permanent alliances. Hence my reasoning for the "Romance of leaders" to begin with. it would offer individual storyline and potential for such alliances after effort had been invested.

So If america were looking to date.......who would America want as a significant other? I'm thinking Australia, tough, independant, kinda dirty in a kinky sort a way, and exotic with a nice tan.

-Qes

 

[Nikis-Knight]

So If america were looking to date.......who would America want as a significant other? I'm thinking Australia, tough, independant, kinda dirty in a kinky sort a way, and exotic with a nice tan.

Or India. But yeah, I love the Aussies.

But I think your original idea was more along the line of leaders hooking up with whoever they think is pur-dy, with the nation dragged along for the ride. If leaders could woo and mate, I rather suspect that half the next generation will have the sea-faring trait, ala Falamar.

 

[Silverkiss]

You can. You check the "Enable Permanent Alliances" and whit a given tech you will be able to set up a Permanent Alliance whit some other nation in game.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Thought so, but I almost always do the quick start option. Thanks.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

And as to confidence in America? I have no confidence in organisations or non-human entities, i have confidence in individuals. Being american, being indain, isreali, ugandan. It all means "your from somewhere", "you have background" "you have socio-economic influences on your person" Etc. But in the end, a country is just another country, a person is something wholey else, and wonderous.

A government is a contract between people for the purpose of preserving their rights. A nation, as I see it, is pretty much the contract, the people under that contract, and the land on which those people live. I have some degree of faith in the contract that makes up America, as it is one of the more durable throughout history, and if I'm somewhat fond of the land and its people, that's to be expected.

However, I definitely take your point about the value of individual humans. In this case, the whole is not the sum of its parts, rather the nation is to be valued less than the sum of its people.

P.S. Gifting your soldiers to people you are about to declare war on is generally not smart.

 

[Sureshot]

what if you gift them extreme amounts of useless units (to put strain on their upkeep) and then target their highest commerce producing city? then with some luck they'll go on strike, lose their good units, and the invasion can be even easier!

not likely, but possible lol